Application to vary conditions 4 (season), 7 (approval of pod details) and 8 (approval of storage details) attached to planning permission reference C14/1218/33/LL
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen Davies
Decision:
To refuse – reasons
1. The proposal
would equate to the creation of a permanent alternative camping accommodation
site within a Special Landscape Area and therefore contrary to criterion 1 of
Policy TWR 3 of the LDP.
2. It is not considered that the proposal would do anything to maintain, improve or restore the recognised character of the Special Landscape Area and the proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 of the LDP.
Minutes:
Attention
was drawn to the late observations form that had been received
The
application was submitted to Committee as the site was owned by a member of the
Council.
a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the
application, noting that this was an application to amend conditions 4 (restriction of
pitching season), 7 (submission and agreement of pod details) and 8 (agreement
of storage arrangements) attached to planning permission C14/1218/33/LL. It was
explained that planning permission C14/1218/33/LL provided conditional planning
consent for the change of use of a field to create a touring caravan site for
11 touring caravans and 2 camping ‘pods’ along with the construction of a
toilet block. Based on the information submitted as part of the application to
hand, it was noted that the occupancy period of the pods would be between 1
March and 31 October but that the pods would remain on site without being
let/occupied for the rest of the year. Details of the pods had not been
submitted, nor were details of the site where they would be stored, as required
by conditions 7 and 8 of the planning permission granted in March 2015.
When conditional planning consent was
granted for the pods in question in 2015, this had been done on the
understanding that they would be portable pods which could be moved to and from
the site easily. Despite the clear conditions attached to the original permission
to agree the details of the pods and storage arrangements, this was not done.
The officer also drew attention to the condition which stated that no touring
caravans or pods were to be stored on site between 1 November and 28 February
the following year.
He highlighted that the application
stated that the pods on the site were of the type that could be weakened or
damaged in being moved at the end or start of the season, and that the
applicant intended to keep the pods on-site throughout the year. Since the
applicant did not intend to remove them from the site during the winter months,
the application had been given consideration under Policy TWR 3 of the LDP,
which related to static caravan and chalet sites and permanent alternative
camping accommodation.
It was noted that the site was
located in open countryside outside any development boundaries recognised in
the adopted development plan, and within a Special Landscape Area. It was also
located within a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. Due to its
location within a Special Landscape Area, Policy TWR 3 of the LDP stated that
proposals for the development of new permanent alternative camping
accommodation within such areas will be refused. It
was not considered that approval of a permanent pod site in this location would
assist in preserving, enhancing or restoring the character of the Special
Landscape Area. Although the pods in question were located near to existing
buildings, a permanent development of this nature would be likely to cause
harm to the visual quality of the landscape and it
was therefore considered that the proposal was contrary to the requirements of
Policy PCYFF 4 and Policy AMG 2 of the LDP.
b)
It was proposed and seconded to
refuse the application.
c)
During
the ensuing discussion the members made the following comments:
·
To approve the application would set
a dangerous precedent
·
Approval would be unfair to
applicants who had already been refused
·
They accepted that there were costs
involved with moving the pods, but given that a condition had been attached to
the application before the pods were sited, surely the cost element had been
taken into consideration
·
The conditions from 2015 clearly
stipulated that the pods should be portable and removed during the winter
·
Conditions were set for a reason
·
The applicant should comply with the
conditions
·
There were already two wooden pods
on-site and they looked presentable
·
There was no local objection to the
application
·
Removing the pods would involve
additional costs
·
The development would not have a
wider impact on the historic landscape, and was therefore acceptable in respect
of policy AT1 of the LDP
·
The proposal was unlikely to cause
significant harm to the amenities of the local neighbourhood and was acceptable
in respect of Policy PCYFF2 of the LDP
ch) In response to the observations, the
Assistant Head of Planning and the Environment noted that although on the
surface the application appeared to be harmless, approving the application
would set a dangerous precedent and would undermine Planning policies.
RESOLVED to refuse the application
1.
The proposal would equate to the creation of a permanent
alternative camping accommodation site within a Special Landscape Area and was therefore
contrary to criterion 1 of Policy TWR 3 of the LDP.
2.
It was not considered that the proposal would do anything to
preserve, enhance or restore the recognised character of the Special Landscape
Area and the proposal was therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies
PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 of the LDP.
Supporting documents: